On Tuesday 20 October 2009 16:47:50 Jonathan Callen wrote:
> Mike Frysinger wrote:
> >> The problem was that Gentoo's early amd64 implementation predated this
> >> standardization, and we had chosen the other way. While we've defaulted
> >> to lib64 for 64-bit libs for years, it has never been con
Mike Frysinger wrote:
> if you read FHS you'll see that both implementations are allowed. Gentoo
> isnt
> violating anything here. wrt LSB, who knows. there are a ton of things we
> dont follow with LSB.
Actually, at first, FHS says that any /lib would be allowed, but
it then goes into speci
On Tuesday 20 October 2009 12:25:15 Duncan wrote:
> Thomas Sachau posted on Tue, 20 Oct 2009 17:29:25 +0200 as excerpted:
> > Michael Haubenwallner schrieb:
> >> Isn't the intention of multilib to have a new (64bit) system be
> >> compatible with the corresponding old (32bit) system?
> >>
> >> Plea
Thomas Sachau posted on Tue, 20 Oct 2009 17:29:25 +0200 as excerpted:
> Michael Haubenwallner schrieb:
>> Isn't the intention of multilib to have a new (64bit) system be
>> compatible with the corresponding old (32bit) system?
>>
>> Please comment, thank you!
>> /haubi/
>
> If you have a 64bit s
On 10/20/2009 04:06 PM, Michael Haubenwallner wrote:
Isn't the intention of multilib to have a new (64bit) system
be compatible with the corresponding old (32bit) system?
I'm not sure I understand the whole procedure you use to build this app.
Why not simply use -m32 when building it? Why b
